User talk:Johnleeds1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

November 2012[edit]

Hello, I'm MatthewVanitas. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Shia Islam, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Especially for an article this major, you absolutely must apply WP:Citations to any statements made. Further, for the general Shia article, you additions might be just too much detail for what is meant to be an overview article. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, this does not mean "take the same info, still don't cite it, and put it in a less-public article". These are historical issues that have been discussed at length by serious academics, so there is no reason these can't easily be footnoted with a trip to GoogleBooks. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Reply from John

I have done a lot of research in this area and currently work in the University of London and have been through hundreds of books in the school of oriental and african studies SOAS library too. The SOAS library contains more books on this topic than almost any other library. Some of the books are also very old. When you go through the oldest books like Al-Muwatta you realise that there was no such thing as Sunnis or Shias at that time. There were highly educated people like Imam Ja'far al-Sadiq and Imam Malik. But there were no theological differences. Then when students of Imam Ja'far al-Sadiq and Imam Malik when to far away places, they still all agreed on what was contained in the Quran, but allowed the people in those areas to continue with some of their pre-islamic laws and traditions if they did not contractic with the Quran. Due to there not being good communications, their implementation of islamic laws was also not as standardised.

A good book to read is

N.J. Coulson - History of Islamic Law [1] or like this:[1] but this is prefered[2]

The concept of Sunni and Shia developed much later

I made changes to your source so you can see how its done J8079s (talk) 01:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome!

January 2013[edit]

Please do not add or change content, as you did to Islam, without verifying it by citing reliable sources. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Daniel(talk) 00:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

If you use Coulson you would probably have to say "According to Coulson...". Have you read WP:NOR yet? Dougweller (talk) 13:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit summaries[edit]

Hi, I noticed that you have recently been making a lot of edits to the article on Islam. I commend you for adding citations to sources as you did in this edit. As you have probably noticed, Wikipedia has a community of editors, and changes are often reviewed (and reverted). I was looking at your edits to the Islam article today and was having a hard time figuring out what you were doing. It would be very helpful if you would leave an edit summary when you are making changes. It doesn't have to be anything fancy, just enough to let people know what you're doing. ("Adding sentence about X" or "This isn't quite correct; fixing the sentence and adding another citation" are examples of edit summaries you might use.)

Anyway, I'm glad you've decided to edit Wikipedia, and if you have any questions, please let me know. (You can contact me on my "talk page", or just give me a shout out here, as I have added your talk page to my watchlist.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Could you please acknowledge that you are receiving the messages that people leave here? Wikipedia is, in part, a community, and for things to run smoothly we need good communication. I'd like to know that I'm not just talking to cyberspace. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for responding below. I'm glad that you're interested in improving the Islam article. Just so you know, your changes are not lost, but archived in the article history. You can actually see where the article was changed using the "diff" view like this. But before you go and restore the information, though, would you mind responding specifically to what I said abut using edit summaries to let people know what you're doing? They make it much easier for people who are reviewing your edits, and it also makes it less likely that someone will revert your change as being nonconstructive. (Feel free to reply to me in this section.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I will use edit summaries.

Awesome! Thank you so much. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit summaries and lack of communication[edit]

Wikipedia is a collaborative exercise and communication between editors is vital. You've been asked to use edit summaries so that other editors understand the reason for your edits, and to respond to messages here. So far you've ignored these requests. If you wish to continue to edit you really do have to start responding. Dougweller (talk) 15:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


Answer[edit]

Over time a lot of articles on Islamic History have appeared on wikipedia that are very relevant to Islamic history and are important events in Islamic history and could do with having links from the main Islam page so that the main article flows and people could also click on the link and find out more. I have provided a lot of citations and most of the citations are from the Quran and authentic Hadith books from the early days of Islam and all denominations of Islam agree on these events. All I have done is weave everything that already exists on wikipedia together so that people could get a complete view. I have spent a lot of time and effort on research and linking things on Wikipedia together. I spent months researching these changes so that I could tie everything together and went through a lot of books. I would appreciate it if you could un do your delete of my changes.

Thanks for getting back to me. Extensive content already exists in other articles in Wikipedia about Islam. I have just linked to the more relevant articles of these from the Islam article, after verifying it is correct and all the different denominations in Islam and the historian agree with it. If you tell me what you want me to change, I could change all the areas you want me to change. Thats fine. Its good that you are policing the article. I only made the changes after verifying that the changes are agreed to by all the denominations in Islam and the Historians. I was just trying to make the article flow better and be informative and weaving in the links to the other articles so that as they read through the Islam page and ready through the history section on the Islam page they could click on relevant links and get more detail on each issue. In the citations I also used some of the very old books from 1400 years ago because they were written by historians just after Muhammed and most people agreed with their authenticity and they could also be used for reference.

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Johnleeds1. You have new messages at Dougweller's talk page.
Message added 16:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dougweller (talk) 16:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Islam Page[edit]

Over the last week, I have done a lot of research. I have gone through a lot of books in the School of Oriental and African Studies SOAS library and on the Internet and lots of Islamic and non Islamic Book shops. Views of the different early jurists from 1300 years ago including Jafar al-Sadiq whose views most Shia's follow and Imam Abu Hanifa and Malik ibn Anas whose views most Sunnis follow and the other old jurists criss cross like the weaving of a cloth. They all give priority to the Quran and the Hadith of Mohammad over their own views. I have also found it hard to find any actual text, actually written by Jafar al-Sadiq. May be he also wanted people to give priority to the Quran and the Hadith. Imam Malik ibn Anas wrote the Muwatta therefore his views are easier to assess.

In: Modernist Islam, 1840-1940: A Sourcebook By Charles Kurzman - Page 236 [1]

Charles Kurzman puts it down like this:

"As is evident, all of the founders of the four orthodox schools of Islam agreed upon the wrongness of imitation. They engaged in ijtihad and expressed their opinions, but they did not impose upon anybody else by asserting that their opinions had to be accepted. Everyone was free to accept or not accept. Abu Hanifa said, "This is my opinion. If anyone brings a better explanation, I will accept that one." In the same way, when Imam Malik was asked to compel the agents of Harun al-Rashid to act according to the principles put forth in his work al-Muwatta he declined, saying: "The Prophet's companions spread all over different countries, and there are hadiths in every nation that other nations have not heard of." Imam Shafi'i used to forbid his students to follow his words in the presence of hadith, saying, "If the Prophet's words become evident to a person, it is not correct to leave aside the sunna in favour of anybody's word." In the same way, Imam Ahmad rejected the writing down and codifying of the religious rulings he gave. They knew that they might have fallen into error in some of their judgements and stated this clearly. They never introduced their rulings by saying, "Here, this judgement is the judgement of God and His prophet."

The articles on Islam in wikipedia have also become a mediun for people to push their political ideas. There appears to be more politics in the Islam section than actual information about Islam.

Over the last fews days, on the Islam page I have done a lot of work to tie it to the other pages about islam in Wikipedia, chronologically. I also put links in to other articles on wikipedia about actual events agreed to by every denomination and the historians. I tried to make it flow better. The whole section on islam still needs work from other contributors.

JohnLeeds1


I responded over on Talk:Sunni Islam, I hope this will work out. MezzoMezzo (talk) 08:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I responded over on Talk:Sunni Islam - Johnleeds1

Mr. Leeds,
I agree with your latest comment wholeheartedly, but since it isn't directly related to Sunni Islam I thought I would respond here. Yes, the views of early jurists concur quite a bit and they were less prone to being influence by political movements than modern Muslim clerics. And yes, after observing Islam-related articles on Wikipedia for around six years now, I do agree with your statement that most Islam-related articles are either Muslims pushing a pro-Islam political agenda, Christian pushing an anti-Islam agenda or Muslim sects bickering among one another over who's right and who's wrong. Islam-related articles are sorely in need of some objective contributions which aim simply to provide the readers with information, not to convince them of a certain viewpoint.
The difficult, of course, is how that should be done. These six years have also taught me that fighting against this lack of neutrality will make you the target of insults, slurs, stalking and reporting you falsely to moderators for things you didn't do. If you're willing to face all that then perhaps there is some kind of task force on Wikipedia we could join and focus on improving articles one by one. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your statement:

"Islam-related articles are sorely in need of some objective contributions which aim simply to provide the readers with information, not to convince them of a certain viewpoint."

The following points in the Talk section of the Islam Page listed by the Denver Post on April 30, 2007 may still need to be addressed:

The History section still needs to be shifted a bit more in the direction of religious history away from political history. It also needs to be integrated better internally; some sections do not flow properly
Add more to the history, culture, science, and Mathematics section(s) and what Muslims contributed to Europe.
The relationship of Islam and politics should be discussed in a section devoted for it. The section should cover the fact that sharia law is only a personal law b/t someone and God (not a political or non-Muslim law), the fact the religion has been used as a tool for political profit and warfare (for ages), the fact that the suggested mode of government leadership was to "choose from the best among yourselves" (no kings), the fact that a fatwa as known today is not what is defined by sharia law (baseless political tool), and many other issues.

Dougweller, User:Daniel J. Leivick and MatthewVanitas appear to be a mediator you could talk them

When people go to the Islam section on Wikipedia they want to see actual facts about Islam, agreed to by the historians, the Quran, all the early jurists like Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i, and Hanbal that the sunnis follow and by Jafar al-Sadiq who the Shias follow and facts which exist in all the different authentic hadith books.

Currently there is a lots of contradictory unresearched material on each page where people have just put forward their own views, with out any real references to any authentic historical books. All you see is arguments about who should be king on each page. Some argue one way others the other way. More money and politics than anything about Islam.

Islam is 1400 years old and there is the Quran, recognised old Hadith books that most Muslims agree with. Therefore there is a lot of common literature.

The Islam section may be better off focusing on the core issues that are agreed to by most people and have the differences on the periphery.

People want to see actual facts. - JohnLeeds1 --Johnleeds1 (talk) 18:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits[edit]

Information.svg Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button Insert-signature.png or Button sig.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 18:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


Thanks for letteing me know--Johnleeds1 (talk) 18:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
That was a WP:BOT that automatically signs for you when you forget - except when you really wish it had, of course. Dougweller (talk) 18:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Question for you[edit]

Question: When you cite the Chronology Of Islamic History is this the book you're referencing (edition and year)? ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Answer[edit]

Yes this is one of the books, but most of the books I used were in the School of Oriental and African Studies SOAS library in London. History of Islamic Law by N. J. Coulson is also a good book for Islamic Law, Coulson used to teach in the School of Oriental and African Studies SOAS. I also used Al-Muwatta of Imam Malik Ibn Anas and Sahih al-Bukhari to double check the references and also used other Sunni books and Shia books like the Nahj al-Balagha and many other shia books. I also went through hundreds of books on the internet. I also looked through history books. Most of the articles already existed on Wikipedia they just needed to be weaved into the Islam page in chronological order so that people could make sense of things. --Johnleeds1 (talk) 17:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Diagram[edit]

Ha ha, yes, everything you've found is true. If you go far back enough, you will ultimately find the leaders of madhhabs having studied with the same chain of teachers going back to Sahaba. It's a startling revelation, especially considering that hundreds of years later, people claiming to follow those madhhabs would later persecute on another. Have you considered putting this diagram in your sandbox and seeing how it would work and where it would be appropriate? MezzoMezzo (talk) 08:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

February 2013[edit]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from one or more pages into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 10:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 18[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Islam, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dark Ages (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Answer[edit]

Thanks for your feed back. I will go through these again and remove the bits that need to be removed. I agree with you about the Greco-Persian wars comment. I was going to remove that. I will go through the articles and remove it tomorrow.

Thanks

Diagram[edit]

Sorry for being so late. Anyway, the Shi'a diagram which you showed me actually is a bit difficult on the eyes. I happen to know the order in which son inhereted from father, but for someone who doesn't then that diagram might be difficult to understand. The Christianity diagram of sects, however, is great and looks professionally done. Now, you mentioned DeCause had some issues with the diagram you designed. Where did he state this? It would be better to include him in any discussions in order to hammer this out; that way, we could build a consensus. The talk pages of the relevant articles would also allow other people to add their input. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Islam article[edit]

Dear John Leeds,

Thank you for your good faith edits, but please follow wikipedia policy as I mentioned on the edit summaries, WP:NPS WP:QUOTE among others. Respectfully, Sodicadl (talk) 21:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Please see my response on the article’s talk page. Sodicadl (talk) 23:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 9[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Islam, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Ishaq and Ismail (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:28, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits[edit]

Information.svg Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button Insert-signature.png or Button sig.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 06:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

This is not Hadithpedia[edit]

Hi, I removed a lot of hadiths of Ali article bases on WP:ISLAMOR. Please refer to the talk page of the article and write your idea there, if you oppose my edition. Thanks.Seyyed(t-c) 15:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Salam, Dear Brother. First, I agree with you that there are a lot of wrong information in wikipedia about Islam as well as many other issues. However, due to the fact that I am too busy in my life, I just work on few issues which I know better. In addition, you can find in my contributions that I have not participated in religious controversies.
Second, As you know there are a lot of untrue and forged Hadiths in the Hadith collections. Thus, several years ago the editors who worked on these issues including me built a consensus to solve the problem based on WP policies and Manual Of Style. Therefor, narrating Hadith from early without reference to the secondary sources is OR.Seyyed(t-c) 03:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Reply[edit]

I see, it's starting to dawn on you now. "It" being the early connections between all the Muslim schools of though, "it" being that thing which hasn't dawned on most Muslims. I remember when I discovered that too; realizing "it" is like a blind man suddenly being able to see. It's fascinating, isn't it?

Anyway, yes, what you're saying is true. There is a lot of misinformation about Islam on Wikipedia, but that is in part due to misinformation on Islam both in the West and in Muslim countries, and even Western societies and Muslim societies. The most objective research you will find is usually from non-Muslim institutions like Brill Publishers or McGill University. Not that all of it is objective, it's just not as bad as other visible agencies.

I'll take a look at what you've suggested, and see if we can move past the squabbling. Keep in mind that although your edits might be based on correct information, large-scale changes need to be discussed first; you'll need the sources you've found to back things up on talk pages, because many people (even, or especially, Muslims) base all they know about Islam on complete and total misinformation. The only solution is to back up what you say per WP:RS. Also remember Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Reply[edit]

Please see my reply on my talk page. Sodicadl (talk) 18:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

List of companions[edit]

Hi Johnleeds1, this page:List of Sahabah seems neglected, somebody created a template of companions template:Sahabah mentioning 280 names, the page list of sahabah is just a mess, what's your suggestion? Kiatdd (talk) 18:57, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Muawiyah[edit]

Thank you for the improvements you have made to the article on Muawiyah I.[2] The new section has some citations, which is great. Would it be possible for you to add some more citations please. You must have some sources for the information you amended, and and also for the new paragraphs you added that lack citations. It is much easier for you to add the citations for this than for other people.

I also have one quibble. You have a paragraph that starts: "Sunni scholars interpret..." This is weasel-like. Please either give citations to a secondary source that says this, or amend to "Sunni scholars, such as X, Y and Z, interpret...", which would also need citing.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Muawiyah page[edit]

Hi Toddy I have added some references as requested.

I did not add the "Sunni scholars interpret.." that has been there for a very long time. Its possible I may have moved it. The history goes back to 30 August 2010 and it was there then and may have been there before that point. --Johnleeds1 (talk) 20:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Your Diagram[edit]

Have you read that book by Aisha Bewley you mentioned on Talk:Muawiyah I‎? My guess is that you have not done this so far. I suspect that you will wish to modify Talk:Islam#The diagram we are discussing once you have.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:26, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Toddy, I have read the book by Aisha Bewley. I have a copy of it. I could add content to the Muawiyah article and add references with page number and everything else. I just wanted to see what peoples views are first on how they think the article should be structured before I add any further content.--Johnleeds1 (talk) 17:28, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


A few suggestions[edit]

I thought I'd give you a few suggestions on the table...

  1. Consider making it a standalone article or template. That way it can be discussed and improved in one place, instead of having different versions scattered across multiple articles. (If you make a template it can be transcluded onto other articles.) I'll help you with this if you like.
  2. Consider writing a short paragraph at the beginning of the table explaining in simple English what the table is about and what we're supposed to be seeing. Right now it's just a bunch of unfamiliar names and dates in boxes. What am I supposed to be seeing?
  3. Consider adding more sources to the template, perhaps even one per name/box. It seems that part of Pass a Method's concern with the template has to do with the sourcing, so that would help.
  4. Try not to take it too personally when you get reverted over and over. There are editors here who are more and less abrasive, and you kind of have to have a thick skin sometimes.

Hope that helps. Let me know if I can help. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Adjwilley. Adjwilley your help is appreciated. The Diagram was on Wikipedia before I started editing the content on Wikipedia. I just expanded it and added the early books. The diagram is for the Law and jurisprudence section of the Islam page. The explanation is on there too. The explanation was:
Muhammad taught the Quran to his companions. The Quran set the rights, the responsibilities and the rules for people and for societies to adhere to. Muhammad then provided an example, which is recorded in the hadith books, showing people how he practically implemented those rules in a society. After the passing of Muhammad, his companions, many of whom settled in Madina, taught the generation after him. They then taught the generation after them. Many scholars including Imam Jafar al-Sadiq, Imams Abu Hanifa and Malik ibn Anas worked together in Al-Masjid an-Nabawi in Medina along with over 70 other leading jurists and scholars.
Much of the knowledge we have about Muhammad is narrated through Aisha, the wife of Muhammad. Aisha raised and taught her nephew Qasim ibn Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr the grandson of Abu Bakr and the grandfather of Ja'far al-Sadiq. Aishas also taught her nephew Urwah ibn Zubayr. He then taught his son Hisham ibn Urwah, who was the main teacher of Malik ibn Anas whose views many Sunni follow. Umar taught his son Abdullah ibn Umar who also learned off Muhammad.
Many of the later differences between the different denominations are regarding Sharia laws devised through Ijtihad where there is no such ruling in the Quran or the Hadiths of Islamic prophet Muhammad regarding a similar case. As these jurists went to new areas, they were pragmatic and in some cases continued to use the same ruling as was given in that area during pre-Islamic times. If the population felt comfortable with it, it was just and they used Ijtihad to deduce that it did not conflict with the Quran or the Hadith. This made it easier for the different communities to integrate into the Islamic State and that assisted in the quick expansion of the Islamic State.
The diagram shows the early scholars in Islam, responsible for the development of Islamic law, jurisprudence. It also shows the later divergence in the denominations and the literature responsible for the divergence. It shows who the scholars were taught by and who they then taught. It shows where they lived and when they were born and when they died. It shows the books they wrote and allows the reader to click on the scholar or the book to go to Wikipedia page about that scholar or that book. The Wikipedia pages for each scholar already show their date of birth and the date of their death and where they lived. The diagram just shows this information diagrammatically and chronologically so that people could see when they lived and where and what books they wrote and their relationship with the other scholars.
The diagram has been built up on the Talk section of the Islam page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Islam
It is a cut down version of the chains of narration of hadiths diagram. These chains started with Muhammad and showed who reported what he said and who then forwarded that information until it was written down a few hundred years later in a hadith book. Toddy said that it could be used to show the links between the denominations, but since the denominations developed much later and the early scholars all worked together, it was left as purely factual and the reader could click on the links to read the books them selves. These books are a snapshot in time. The diagram takes the reader down the generations and allows them to compare the content in the different books.
Pass a method created the article "Early scholars of Islam" but the diagram needs to be in the "Fiqh" article and the "Islamic schools and branches" articles where it used to be. As it shows the divergence of the branches. It also shows the books followed by the different branches.
You said "(If you make a template it can be transcluded onto other articles.) I'll help you with this if you like." Adjwilley, your help with that will be much appreciated.
To show the divergence in Christianity there could be diagrams like this one
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ChristianityBranches.svg
But in Islam people follow fiqh and Hadith books after the Quran and therefore it's best to show the early scholars and their books. So that people could also read books them selves and compare. --Johnleeds1 (talk) 18:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Great. Let's start the template in a sandbox, which I will create for you, if you don't mind. I'll make it as a subpage of your user page, like this:
You can use this space for pretty much anything (Wikipedia related) you want, but for now let's use it to develop the diagram. When we're done, we can move it out and put it into a new template. For the moment I'm just going to copy and paste the diagram from the Islam talk page, and maybe do a little formatting on it so that references will display and stuff. I'd also like to invite User:MezzoMezzo to participate since they seem to have a pretty good idea of what's going on. How does that sound for a start? ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
P.S. While I was trying to create your sandbox I accidentally created your userpage for you. This will make your signature appear blue instead of red. If you preferred it the other way, you can easily get it deleted again by placing {{db-userreq}} on the page. Sorry about the mess up. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I got diagnosed with Tonsillitis yesterday and I still feel pretty bad. Give me a few days and I will try to help somehow. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Wow, I'm sorry. Be sure and take it easy. I'll see you when you're back. ~Adjwilley (talk)

Thanks for your help Adjwilley. We have all been very busy on the Muawiyah I page [3] Toddy1, MezzoMezzo and Flagrantedelicto have also been busy on there. These books are extremely important to all the Islam pages in Wikipedia as they are heavily referenced. But one of the major issues highlighted by Flagrantedelicto is that because Muawiyah and many of the companions of Muhammad lived at a time before the Sunni Shia theological schools of thought were formed, the views of many of the scholars of the time like Abdullah ibn Umar do not fit well with the current views of the Sunnis or Shias. In many cases it has been like fitting a square peg into a round hole. After much debating it was decided to take a break and we will be going through the books and referencing the old books. It was decided to make the articles more academic in nature and improve the references and actually state the books. Therefore this diagram is very important to the whole Islam section. Adjwilley take a break. We are all taking a break for a few weeks too. Then we will be fresh and all work together on this. --Johnleeds1 (talk) 10:28, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Your recent posting[edit]

Regarding your recent posting.[4] He/she is indefinitely blocked. He/she is not allowed to to contribute. If he/she tries to evade the block, anything he/she contributes should be deleted.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

RE: Article being constructed[edit]

Hi, plz don't panic I'll not delete any matter from Talk:Muawiyah I/Temp‎ (at-least for now ;). I'm just putting tags to identify areas of improvement because there is not point in discussing a draft and streamlining it if it is full of unsourced, primary sourced, non RS, disputed or unclear content. I want that when discussion starts (& I don't think its going to happen in full swing for at-least next fortnight) we have clean content at-least by sources, so that we can start copy-editing it without much deliberations to clear the unsourced/poorly-sourced content. We need to work on the text sourcing to include more comprehensive in-line citations based on multiple verifiable RS. We also need to make the passages crisp & to the point and avoid lengthy quotes and commentary. If we are giving so much of time on this article then we may try it to make at-least a B-class article as per WP standards. From now on I'll be bit occupied due to Laylat-al-Qadr and follwing Id-al-Fitr engagements but hopefully will ave some time to drop-in time-to-time and do some meaningful contribution. Happy editing.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 16:57, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Addition to al-Waqidi[edit]

Dr., I noticed that you added quite a bit of information in this edit to Al-Waqidi. It really is a lot, and a number of the paragraphs don't contain any sources. There is also a lot of Arabic text. Wouldn't it be more prudent to remove the Arabic and trim out the paragraphs without sources? MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

al-Waqidi[edit]

Hi MezzoMezzo. I kept of coming across Al-Waqidi when compiling a list of the old books, but initially did not pay much attention to them thinking they may be unreliable until I read one and compared it with the Roman text and found it to be a close match. Most of the books I have looked at in regards to Al-Waqidi's appear to accept Al-Waqidi's history books, the problem they highlight is with his hadith collections do not have a chain of narration therefore people have not been able to deduce their authenticity. They say that it does not mean that he lied, it just means that because their is no chain of narration they could not be verified it. I will be adding more references soon. I have just been very busy with work and also doing more research for the Muawiya article. I think it will be good to leave the reference link to the book [5] on the Al-Waqidi page. You could remove the Arabic text and clean it up. Thanks --Johnleeds1 (talk) 21:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I expected you to be a bit busy, no rush in that case - I just didn't know where the info had come from. Obviously Dhahabi's siyar is one but I didn't know if all the text was there or not. As an aside, I know that Waqidi's info is confirmed in Roman sources which is a huge boost for the authenticity of what he says - I have some copies of his works published in the 1990s on the way to my post office box right now - but did the Romans also mention criticism of his hadith narration? I wasn't aware that Europeans were aware of the system of hadith verification that early on. P.S. I self-reverted regarding the conquest for syria book on the page. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:20, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Every one I have talked to so far says that Waqidi's history books are correct. Even the Roman history books from the time closely match al-Waqidi's history books. Yesterday I was reading Ibn Katheers books on the Umayyads and even he quoted al-Waqidi. The Roman books record history not hadiths therefore his hadith books could not be crossed referenced. Thanks for reverting the reference to his book.--Johnleeds1 (talk) 19:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Clarification[edit]

Hi,

I am in the process of blending your article information for the Battle of Camel to previous one. You contribution was helpful, but I need your help for clarification on certain points since they are vague. Please leave a message on the Battle of Camel talk page. Thanks. Zabranos (talk) 09:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

English books[edit]

Dr. Leeds, I have a colleague who is interested in reading a history book on the Umayyad era that was written close to that time, but he doesn't speak Arabic. Do you know of the works of Baladhuri are available in English? Or if there's a way my friend could by English translations of Tabari's history, but only the specific volumes he wants? Or is there anything else you would recommend? Everything I own is in Arabic and I'm not up to speed with what has been translated and what hasn't. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I have been collecting old books from Madina from the first 200 years of Islam. They are usually the most detailed. The oldest history books are by imam al waqidi. He lived in Madina for 50 years and had access to the grand children of the companions of Muhammad. One of his books was recently translated and is online at http://www.kalamullah.com/conquest-of-syria.html
Al Waqidi's history books are extremely old and everyone uses them, both the Sunnis and the Shia's and the western academics. They also match the text in the Roman books from the time. He writes in a style that makes you feel that you are there. Al Waqidi also wrote a book on the Battle of the Camel. The problem is that it is very hard to find some of these old books. I was going through Ibn Katheer's books on the Umayyads and he also references Al Waqidi.
There are also Imam Malik's and Imam Abu Hanifah's books but they are more about Muhammad and on Hadith. Imam Malik's book Muwatta Imam Malik is usually used by orientalists, like N.J. Coulson - in his book "History of Islamic Law" as a bench mark to compare Islam Law against other legal systems because it is the oldest book on Islamic law and was the consensus of opinion of the jurists of Madina at the time. It also contains fiqh and hadith narrated through Imam Jafar and Imam Muhammad Bakar. But they are not history books as such. They are more about the rulings that Muhammad gave and on preserving this knowledge for future generations.
The next oldest history books you could get hold of are Ibn Hisham's that are based on the work of Ibn Ishaq Born 85 AH /704 AD. It took me ages to find an English version of it. Some of the text on the Battle of Siffin I put in, was from Ibn Hisham's book. And he got those bits from an earlier writer, Abu Mikhnaf, who was Ali's supporter.
These events are extremely tragic and you could see the tragedy in these old books. It's all the more tragic for those people, as they were all so united a few years earlier, as shown in the book on Syria http://www.kalamullah.com/conquest-of-syria.html and then a few years later small misunderstandings snowballed and led to extremely tragic events. They all knew each other and in most cases they are all very closely related.
Then there is also Al-Baladhuri. Most Muslims have never heard of him, but you could find his book "The origins of the islamic state" in the main national libraries in the West. There are also some translations of it on line by the orientalists

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=bcWtttJL3WEC&pg=PA1&dq=al-baladhuri+the+origins+of+the+islamic+state&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GLnrUefvHu330gXUpYGIDg&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=al-baladhuri%20the%20origins%20of%20the%20islamic%20state&f=false Al-Baladuri


http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=DrtLsKXt1osC&pg=PA9&dq=al-baladhuri&hl=en&sa=X&ei=TSpDUpLRFNKThQfk8oDgDA&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=al-baladhuri&f=false


I think there is a translation of it by Aisha Bewley too--Johnleeds1 (talk) 18:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

There is also The History of al-Tabari but it was written later

http://www.sunypress.edu/p-2078-the-history-of-al-tabari-vol-16.aspx

I personally prefer the very earlier books written in Madina. The very early authors in Madina had access to more first hand information. It was also harder for them to lie as so many people in Madina knew Muhammad and what he said. 10,000 people in Madina new Muhammad. --Johnleeds1 (talk) 20:07, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

There is also this recent translation:

The Caliphate of Banu Umayyah the first Phase, Ibn Katheer, Taken from Al-Bidayah wan-Nihayah by Ibn Katheer, Ismail Ibn Omar 775 HISBN 978-603-500-080-2 Translated by Yoosuf Al-Hajj Ahmad

It is based on earlier books but it is good for filling in the gaps if you also have access to the earlier books.--Johnleeds1 (talk) 13:03, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


Still there[edit]

Who said I left? I'm bit inactive but still there. You're not getting rid of me so easily ;) --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 16:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


Nice to hear you are back. --Johnleeds1 (talk) 15:11, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

hello. if u want research in iran > khorasan razavi > mashhad (whitch there is holy shrine of imam reza) in ""astan quds razavi" center library" that is in holy shrine is many old and original book that is for reasearcher and u can come and read them.i highly recommend u.Mohammadsdtmnd (talk) 15:23, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist}} template (see the help page).